Noah, thanks for putting in the blood sweat and tears into this one. I can see the effort that went into it, and I really appreciate it. I think you struck the right balance of context, technical detail, and non technical overviews. Nice work.
Excellent article Noah. Obviously a lot of research went into this and it is much appreciated.
It does point to something I've been thinking about though. It seems to me that trying to compare these two subs is almost like comparing apples and oranges. They were both designed for different missions. The 212CD being the ambush predator lying in wait for it's prey while the KSS-III is a true blue-water platform.
If Canada wants to chart a course more independent of the US (and from what I read and hear we do) then the KSS-III would be the clear choice. I think it would give the RCN credibility that it hasn't had in a long time (if ever).
Good description of steel & various properties (ex blacksmith/knife maker). The one thing about the non-magnetic I had heard is that while the hull doesn’t show up on a mad detector the steel in the engines are/were detectable. No idea how true this is.
That is true! Thats why platforms like the 212 still have active degaussing systems deapite being 'non-magnetic' specifically to handle any magnetic signatures from internal equipment.
The Thresher section really drives home how much institutional memory matters in these procurement decisions. The fact that SUBSAFE protocols came from catastrophic failure rather than proactive design is a pattern that keeps repeating across defense. I do appreciate the honest conclusion though, that the metallurgy itself probably wont be the deciding factor. Having worked adjacent to procurement the logistics often trumps the techinical specs every time.
I feel that choosing a submarine is going to be like all important decisions in life. PlayStation or Xbox? Apple vs android? VHS or Beta? Pepsi versus Coke? KSS III or 212cd? Can’t go wrong either way.
There might be no right or wrong choice at the moment, but when ever you make a binary choice like this, you are opening your self up to two completely different set of risks. It doesn't sound like a shortage of HY-100 is likely, since its been widely used for a long time, but Amanox sounds like a bespoke material with greater vulnerability to supply chain issues. While I like the idea of magnetic invisibility, HY-100 might the winner according to the KISS principle.
This is something I plan to tackle lol. One fun thing that even I didnt know until I dug deep was that Valbruna ASW in Welland had the ability to produce Amanox steel. The issue isnt the steel itself, it's the ability to work with
it.
That gets into that infrastructure side of things again, and what kinda infrastructure is missing in the supply chain for certain things.
I was having a conversation about this very thing earlier today. In Canada we have some of fhe foundations of the supply chain in existence, like ine steel maker that specializes in stainless and Austenitic steel, yet its an ingot producer and to transform their product into plate for a hull like this would require investment in plate rolling operations, likely in the hundreds of millions to build out. Technically possible, but there has to be a commitment to use the capacity of no one would invest in installing it.
The same thing can be said about many supply chain gaps in our country. The business model supported for the past 50+ years has been modest value adding, then export. To get the industrial stack required to do more requires a new mode of thinking.
Agree, Austenitic steel as cool as it is might cause us headaches down the road. The French, British and Americans use HY or equivalent in newbuilds, so there can’t be a huge advantage in Amanox that can’t be overcome with modern degaussing systems.
Amanox and other stainless have their uses. Again, it's a product of enviornment. It certainly isnt the ideal material in its current form for nuclear submarines.
If maintenance and sustainment will play an important role in determining the cost-benefit assessment of the different metalluries, one thing to look at is the potential cost-benefits to our industry of maintaining and sustaining the different metals. In other words, how marketable is it to build our ability to maintain HY-100 vs Amanox? What are the different applications of these metals outside of subs? Is there another domestic or international market that we can access with these skills? Developing a single application skill set risks creating a dead end industrial capacity. Which can happen naturally, as technology progresses, but I'd love to know where else HY-100 is still used, and if Amanox is used in other new technology. Much like all the other aspects of industrial Nation building that Canada is fostering through CPSP, it's something that can be added to the table. I genuinely don't know if there is any benefit to developing one of the other, but I would love to find out.
Its something I plan to explore when I get into the maintenance and industry side of things! It definitely gets very interesting, especially when discussing assets that come from CPSP.
Austenitic stainless steel is used in a variety of applications including in power turbine generators, and in nuclear reactor components. Its also used in some designs for spent nuclear fuel casks, from first hand experience. There are definitely other uses for it in general. The question is, would investors get sufficient payback for putting up $200M for a plate rolling mill if it was primarily going to produce specialty grade plate including Austenitic, which btw wouldl not complete, but would complement the capacity for general carbon plate produced by Algoma (they cannot produce specialty ladel refined grades)? In the current environment, plate of that type will have a 50% tariff if shipped to the US, so it would be non-competitve with the likes of Nucore... so the output of a plate rolling mill like this would need to be consumed domestically in value added production of sub assembly fabrication, or final products... and only then exported... as it needs to have a higher value to justify shipping it across oceans. It doesn't mean it cant be done, or that its not a worthwhile thing to consider, but it does mean that there needs to be some level of assurance that the capacity will be utilized effectively, otherwise it makes zero sense.
Wow, thanks for that! I'm sure Noah will touch on some of this in whatever piece he ends up writing, but this was timely and well informed. Canada has a considerable amount nuclear, so austenitic might be put to use there, especially if we start pumping out SMRs, like some people are hoping. Bringing down the cost of something like SMRs is nothing to sneer at, so that's one potential usage. And where there is nuclear, there will be waste, so another potential use. If we can get enough value out of it domestically, any overseas sales are gravy. And selling a product made of it overseas is going to be more profitable than just being a source of plate, I assume. Value adding, and all that.
Well done! I read it last night but it was too late to think about a sensible reply. Too much to digest after one reading. I’l have to go back to it. I get the sense that the 212CD steel will make it somewhat expensive. On the other hand the KSS III is quite a bit larger and will/can carry a larger array of weapons, making it ideally flexible in missions and force projection, giving our political leaders strategic options to apply to various international and sovereignty challenges while allowing our military leaders various tactical capabilities to meet the challenges presented by different threats and enemy forces. While the 212CD is ideal for coastal operations in the Baltic, the KSS III provides the long range and blue water capability needed to get to the Indo-Pacific and the Arctic. In the Atlantic, the KSS III would give Canada a complementary capability to that of the 212CDs, able to stand off with its longer range missiles while the 212CD can operate closer in to the Baltic and NE Atlantic coastline.
A question I have is: What is the impact of the cold weather in the Arctic on the KSS III, given that its AIP system will still require it to surface to some degree every 3 weeks or so? I can see the advantage of 212CD in that sense, and I can see that the cold temperature effects from surfacing would drive one to select nuclear propulsion.
The yield strength gap you found is the smoking gun. You have the Korean KSS-III pushing 100,000 psi for deep Pacific diving while the German Type-212CD sits around 58,000 psi for shallow stealth.
This matters because Ottawa usually mandates that maintenance happens in Canada. You mentioned the Seawolf program hit $3 billion per sub partly due to welding issues. If Canadian yards can't handle the complex German non-magnetic steel, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be writing reports on cost overruns for the next twenty years. We need a hull we can actually fix.
Welding austenitic stainless steel is common, however, it requires low heat input, fast travel speeds, and minimal interpass temperatures (below 175°C) to prevent carbide precipitation, distortion, and hot cracking.
Welders in Canada are already doing this for nuclear and power generation work.
I can't speak about shipyards from first hand experience, though I suspect with the right courses ierhwr ASME or CWB certification its not a problem for austenitic grades.
The Materials Engineer in me found this article fascinating and I deeply respect the amount of work you put into this article. I honestly could go with either and I wonder if we could go with both? Six KSS-III can be used off the Pacific coast and provide the offensive punch for the fleet. Six Type 212CDs can operate in the Atlantic and in the Grand Banks/Great Lakes (which kind of mirror the shallow operational environment of the Baltic) while providing the stealthy hunter capability. I think with 6 of each type and a maintenance facility for KSS-IIIs in BC and the 212CDs in the Maritimes, I think that would give the best of both worlds with a large enough order for both competitors to be happy (although maybe not enough to get the additional industrial offsets the government seems to want). And in operating both, Canada will gain enough expertise that we could design the next generation sub in 2060 as a synthesis of the two.
I think I'd be more concerned about the strength of the 212CD outer composite hull strength and the effect severe cold has on it, and it's ability to punch through ice in an emergency, especially with it's much smaller size and weight. The KSS-III would sustain damage for sure, but most likely result in repairs to the sail and tiles, but the with the 212CD and its composite outer structure? Would it be a guaranteed write off of the sub itself? This is something that probably should be taken into consideration.
Excellent piece. Thoroughly researched. I had hoped you information would help me make up my mind which sub to favour wrt the Canadian sub project. But you gave too much balanced information for both sides:)). Again, well done.
Noah, thanks for putting in the blood sweat and tears into this one. I can see the effort that went into it, and I really appreciate it. I think you struck the right balance of context, technical detail, and non technical overviews. Nice work.
Thank you!
Excellent article Noah. Obviously a lot of research went into this and it is much appreciated.
It does point to something I've been thinking about though. It seems to me that trying to compare these two subs is almost like comparing apples and oranges. They were both designed for different missions. The 212CD being the ambush predator lying in wait for it's prey while the KSS-III is a true blue-water platform.
If Canada wants to chart a course more independent of the US (and from what I read and hear we do) then the KSS-III would be the clear choice. I think it would give the RCN credibility that it hasn't had in a long time (if ever).
Good description of steel & various properties (ex blacksmith/knife maker). The one thing about the non-magnetic I had heard is that while the hull doesn’t show up on a mad detector the steel in the engines are/were detectable. No idea how true this is.
That is true! Thats why platforms like the 212 still have active degaussing systems deapite being 'non-magnetic' specifically to handle any magnetic signatures from internal equipment.
I might need liquid refreshment of that golden nectar, Crown Royal to finish this article. But finish both, I will.
Im gonna get the newsletter out tonight too, because I aint hearing any bells yet.
I just finished the entire read. It is really excellent. Time for that drink.
The Thresher section really drives home how much institutional memory matters in these procurement decisions. The fact that SUBSAFE protocols came from catastrophic failure rather than proactive design is a pattern that keeps repeating across defense. I do appreciate the honest conclusion though, that the metallurgy itself probably wont be the deciding factor. Having worked adjacent to procurement the logistics often trumps the techinical specs every time.
I feel that choosing a submarine is going to be like all important decisions in life. PlayStation or Xbox? Apple vs android? VHS or Beta? Pepsi versus Coke? KSS III or 212cd? Can’t go wrong either way.
There might be no right or wrong choice at the moment, but when ever you make a binary choice like this, you are opening your self up to two completely different set of risks. It doesn't sound like a shortage of HY-100 is likely, since its been widely used for a long time, but Amanox sounds like a bespoke material with greater vulnerability to supply chain issues. While I like the idea of magnetic invisibility, HY-100 might the winner according to the KISS principle.
This is something I plan to tackle lol. One fun thing that even I didnt know until I dug deep was that Valbruna ASW in Welland had the ability to produce Amanox steel. The issue isnt the steel itself, it's the ability to work with
it.
That gets into that infrastructure side of things again, and what kinda infrastructure is missing in the supply chain for certain things.
I was having a conversation about this very thing earlier today. In Canada we have some of fhe foundations of the supply chain in existence, like ine steel maker that specializes in stainless and Austenitic steel, yet its an ingot producer and to transform their product into plate for a hull like this would require investment in plate rolling operations, likely in the hundreds of millions to build out. Technically possible, but there has to be a commitment to use the capacity of no one would invest in installing it.
The same thing can be said about many supply chain gaps in our country. The business model supported for the past 50+ years has been modest value adding, then export. To get the industrial stack required to do more requires a new mode of thinking.
Agree, Austenitic steel as cool as it is might cause us headaches down the road. The French, British and Americans use HY or equivalent in newbuilds, so there can’t be a huge advantage in Amanox that can’t be overcome with modern degaussing systems.
Amanox and other stainless have their uses. Again, it's a product of enviornment. It certainly isnt the ideal material in its current form for nuclear submarines.
If maintenance and sustainment will play an important role in determining the cost-benefit assessment of the different metalluries, one thing to look at is the potential cost-benefits to our industry of maintaining and sustaining the different metals. In other words, how marketable is it to build our ability to maintain HY-100 vs Amanox? What are the different applications of these metals outside of subs? Is there another domestic or international market that we can access with these skills? Developing a single application skill set risks creating a dead end industrial capacity. Which can happen naturally, as technology progresses, but I'd love to know where else HY-100 is still used, and if Amanox is used in other new technology. Much like all the other aspects of industrial Nation building that Canada is fostering through CPSP, it's something that can be added to the table. I genuinely don't know if there is any benefit to developing one of the other, but I would love to find out.
Its something I plan to explore when I get into the maintenance and industry side of things! It definitely gets very interesting, especially when discussing assets that come from CPSP.
Austenitic stainless steel is used in a variety of applications including in power turbine generators, and in nuclear reactor components. Its also used in some designs for spent nuclear fuel casks, from first hand experience. There are definitely other uses for it in general. The question is, would investors get sufficient payback for putting up $200M for a plate rolling mill if it was primarily going to produce specialty grade plate including Austenitic, which btw wouldl not complete, but would complement the capacity for general carbon plate produced by Algoma (they cannot produce specialty ladel refined grades)? In the current environment, plate of that type will have a 50% tariff if shipped to the US, so it would be non-competitve with the likes of Nucore... so the output of a plate rolling mill like this would need to be consumed domestically in value added production of sub assembly fabrication, or final products... and only then exported... as it needs to have a higher value to justify shipping it across oceans. It doesn't mean it cant be done, or that its not a worthwhile thing to consider, but it does mean that there needs to be some level of assurance that the capacity will be utilized effectively, otherwise it makes zero sense.
Wow, thanks for that! I'm sure Noah will touch on some of this in whatever piece he ends up writing, but this was timely and well informed. Canada has a considerable amount nuclear, so austenitic might be put to use there, especially if we start pumping out SMRs, like some people are hoping. Bringing down the cost of something like SMRs is nothing to sneer at, so that's one potential usage. And where there is nuclear, there will be waste, so another potential use. If we can get enough value out of it domestically, any overseas sales are gravy. And selling a product made of it overseas is going to be more profitable than just being a source of plate, I assume. Value adding, and all that.
Well done! I read it last night but it was too late to think about a sensible reply. Too much to digest after one reading. I’l have to go back to it. I get the sense that the 212CD steel will make it somewhat expensive. On the other hand the KSS III is quite a bit larger and will/can carry a larger array of weapons, making it ideally flexible in missions and force projection, giving our political leaders strategic options to apply to various international and sovereignty challenges while allowing our military leaders various tactical capabilities to meet the challenges presented by different threats and enemy forces. While the 212CD is ideal for coastal operations in the Baltic, the KSS III provides the long range and blue water capability needed to get to the Indo-Pacific and the Arctic. In the Atlantic, the KSS III would give Canada a complementary capability to that of the 212CDs, able to stand off with its longer range missiles while the 212CD can operate closer in to the Baltic and NE Atlantic coastline.
A question I have is: What is the impact of the cold weather in the Arctic on the KSS III, given that its AIP system will still require it to surface to some degree every 3 weeks or so? I can see the advantage of 212CD in that sense, and I can see that the cold temperature effects from surfacing would drive one to select nuclear propulsion.
Great read!
The yield strength gap you found is the smoking gun. You have the Korean KSS-III pushing 100,000 psi for deep Pacific diving while the German Type-212CD sits around 58,000 psi for shallow stealth.
This matters because Ottawa usually mandates that maintenance happens in Canada. You mentioned the Seawolf program hit $3 billion per sub partly due to welding issues. If Canadian yards can't handle the complex German non-magnetic steel, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be writing reports on cost overruns for the next twenty years. We need a hull we can actually fix.
Welding austenitic stainless steel is common, however, it requires low heat input, fast travel speeds, and minimal interpass temperatures (below 175°C) to prevent carbide precipitation, distortion, and hot cracking.
Welders in Canada are already doing this for nuclear and power generation work.
I can't speak about shipyards from first hand experience, though I suspect with the right courses ierhwr ASME or CWB certification its not a problem for austenitic grades.
The Materials Engineer in me found this article fascinating and I deeply respect the amount of work you put into this article. I honestly could go with either and I wonder if we could go with both? Six KSS-III can be used off the Pacific coast and provide the offensive punch for the fleet. Six Type 212CDs can operate in the Atlantic and in the Grand Banks/Great Lakes (which kind of mirror the shallow operational environment of the Baltic) while providing the stealthy hunter capability. I think with 6 of each type and a maintenance facility for KSS-IIIs in BC and the 212CDs in the Maritimes, I think that would give the best of both worlds with a large enough order for both competitors to be happy (although maybe not enough to get the additional industrial offsets the government seems to want). And in operating both, Canada will gain enough expertise that we could design the next generation sub in 2060 as a synthesis of the two.
This was a fantastic, incredibly detailed article that obviously entailed a ton of research.
Did you come across any discussion of the US having issues producing sufficient quantities of HY 100?
I think I'd be more concerned about the strength of the 212CD outer composite hull strength and the effect severe cold has on it, and it's ability to punch through ice in an emergency, especially with it's much smaller size and weight. The KSS-III would sustain damage for sure, but most likely result in repairs to the sail and tiles, but the with the 212CD and its composite outer structure? Would it be a guaranteed write off of the sub itself? This is something that probably should be taken into consideration.
If possible, would you mind citing your sources? It would be helpful for anyone who wants to dive deeper into this topic.
Wow! That was a great essay on submarine metalurgy. Thank you
Really nice write up. Where else could I learn about the different steel types. thank you
Excellent piece. Thoroughly researched. I had hoped you information would help me make up my mind which sub to favour wrt the Canadian sub project. But you gave too much balanced information for both sides:)). Again, well done.